Every time I do an interview, I'm asked the same question: how's the Internet affecting the art world? This is what I told the editors of the blog, Art Is Moving, in a recent two-part Q&A:"There are two powerful effects the web has had on every business. The first is that it has created in the audience a desire for instant gratification: you hear about something and you want to know more – or you want to buy it – you can, immediately, no matter where in the world you are. The second is that it has caused a revolutionary process of disintermediation – eliminating or lessening the power of the middle men who once used to hold sway over artists (in the broadest sense of the world) by claiming control of networks of distribution and promotion."Now the audience is no longer 'mass' but individual – a million-fold audience of just one – and the artist has the means to open a direct dialogue with it, to transact with it, without any need for someone to act as their broker or gatekeeper."Inevitably, this leads to another question, also always the same: what's the role of the gallery in this environment? And, as always, I argue that it doesn't have one. Or as I put it in Art Is Moving: "It deserves to die. It's an anachronism that's outlived its usefulness. I think there is still a role for individual curators or even 'show producers' but they need to work in a more individualised, specialist way within a networked 'virtual' paradigm ..." To be more precise, I still see value in public exhibitions and installations but not produced, promoted or managed in the way they are today – the same way they have been for a hundred and fifty years – by dithering, technologically inept, socially aspirational and unadventurous commercial 'bricks and mortar' gallerists.